DOCSLIB.ORG

Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions Genealogy of Westcott & Hort Textual Errors Brooke Foss Westcott Fenton John Anthony Hort Cambridge, England Cambridge, England (1825--1901) (1828--1892) \ / \ / Benjamin B. Warfield Princeton Theological Seminary / Prof. (1887-1921) / \ / \ J. Gresham Machen A. T. Robertson Lewis Sperry Chafer Charles Brokenshire Princeton Theol. Sem. South.Bap.Theol. Dallas Theol. Sem. Bob Jones Univ. (BJU Prof. (1906-29) Prof. (1888-1934) ounder & Prof. (1924-52) Dean/Prof. (1943-54) | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 Genealogy of Westcott & Hort Textual Errors Westminster Theol.Sem | Marshall Neal BJU Founder & Prof. (1929-37) | Prof. (1945-94) | | | | \ | | | | \ Conservative Southern Bapt. Evangelical & Bible Stewart Custer BJU Presbyterians Convention & Churches & / Prof. (1960-- & Bible Churches ManyBaptists Seminaries / / Independent Baptist Seminaries / | \ Central Baptist Detroit Baptist Calvary Theol. Sem. Mnpls., MN Allen Park, MI Sem. Lansdale, PA Gordon Lovik David Doran G. Lovik (BJU Grad) (BJU Grad) (BJU Grad) 2 Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions zBy Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D, Ph.D. 3 My Answer to . FROM THE MIND OF GOD TO THE MIND OF MAN A LAYMAN’S GUIDE TO HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE Their Plea For Neutrality! Agnosticism on the Bible A Book Promoted by Bob Jones University Leaders 4 Why the Mind of Man? Chronology of Events z Pensacola Christian College Video #3 z BJU’s Thurman Wisdom’s Response z 7-School Video Response (9 men) z My Distortions on Bible Versions Book z Pensacola Christian College Video #4 z From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man z Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions 5 The Book Launch – July 4, 1999 Key Facts Presented z Held in BJU Faculty Member’s Church z Entire Meeting was Tape Recorded z All 7 Copyright Holders + 1 Were Present z All 8 Authors Signed 460 Books z 1,300 More Books Sold at World C.of F. z The Deception about the Publisher z The Tie-in with Dr. Ian Paisley (N.Ireland) z Dr. Paisley Would Not Tell His Opinion 6 The Book Launch – July 4, 1999 Key Facts Presented z Dr. Williams’ Account of Book’s Origin z Committee Away from an Organization z Resolution Charged no Scripture or Fact z Committee Uses KJB, NASV, NIV, NKJV z Dr. Downey Left PCC & Dothan Views z Greek “Variants”–Less than a Page z Greek “Variants”–No Doctrine Affected 7 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”? You be the Judge The Book mentions “D. A. Waite” and eight others (pp. 7-8) 8 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”? "It contains a proper spirit. Too often, those who write on this subject of manuscripts and translations have been acrimonious in their tone. There have been vilification of character, personal attacks, and a generally unchristian spirit. The authors of this work have presented their information objectively and without attacks on the character of their opponents." [The Mind of Man, p. ix] 9 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”? Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote of us: z “acrimonious . in tone”(p. ix) z “vilification of character”(p. ix) z “personal attacks” (p. ix) z “unchristian spirit” (p. ix) z “attacks on the character of their opponents” (p. ix) 10 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”? Dr. Mark Minnick wrote of us: z “unlearned . leaders” (p. xii) z “unscrupulous leaders” (p. xii) z “driving an unnecessary wedge” (p. xii) z “ungracious . tone” (p. xii) z “divisive tone” (p. xii) z “character assassination” (p. xii) 11 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”? Dr. James B. Williams wrote of us: z Creating “unnecessary confusion and division” (p. 2) z “doing more damage to the cause of Christ among Fundamentalists than any of the other controversies” (p. 2) z “lack of theological understanding” (p. 4) z “lack of . biblical language training” (p. 4) z “not qualified to speak to the issues” (p. 4) z “disseminators of mis-information” (p. 4) 12 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”? Dr. James B. Williams wrote of us: z “made Bible versions a divisive issue”(p.5) z “arrogant and abrasive” (p. 6) z “parade of misinformers” (p. 7) z “unqualified opponents” (p. 7) z “misinformed and misininforming” (p. 7) z “misinformation and heresy” (p. 7) 13 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”? Dr. James B. Williams wrote of us: (from Acts 20:17-38) z “grievous wolves” (p. 7) z “not sparing the flock” (p.7) z “speaking perverse things” p. 7) z “to twist” (p. 7) z “to pervert” (p. 7) z “to distort” (p. 7) z “people who would deceive and exploit the believers by their heresies” (p. 7)14 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”? Dr. James B. Williams wrote of us: (from 2 Peter 2:1-3) z “people who . deceive” (p.7) z “exploiting the believers by their heresies” (p. 7) z “false prophets” (p. 7) z “false teachers” (p. 7) z “denying the Lord that bought them” (p. 7) z “bring on themselves swift destruction” (p. 7) z “their pernicious ways” (p. 7) z “their damnation slumbereth not” (p. 7) 15 MIS-INFORMATION #1 “Proper Spirit”? Dr. Mark Minnick wrote of us: z regarding Westcott and Hort: “some have vilified these men’s intentions” (p. 85) z “dividing the Lord’s people” (p. 97) z “drumbeating is distracting” (p. 98) z “drumbeating . is unscripturally divisive” (p. 98) 16 MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties? 17 Dr. J. B. Williams, the general editor of The Mind of Man, said to Dr. Bob Jones III in a private meeting: y“We want a committee that’s not affiliated with any kind of organization at all–completely away from all of it.” [tape transcript of 7/4/99] What follows is a tenfold connection with the organization known as Bob Jones University. 18 MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties? 10 BJU Influences on The Mind of Man (summary) z 1. BJU Origin of The Mind of Man z 2. BJU Selection of Copyright Holders z 3. Six BJU Copyright holders z 4. Six BJU Endorsers of the Book z 5. 9 BJU Authors of The Mind of Man z 6. Three BJU Academicians z 7. BJU and the Publishers z 8. The BJU Release of the book z 9. BJU and the Sale of the Book 19 z 10. Book’s Approval by BJU President MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties? 10 BJU Influences on The Mind of Man (details) z 1. BJU Origin of The Mind of Man z 2. BJU Selection of Copyright Holders z 3. Six BJU Copyright holders • BJU Choices by Dr. J. B. Williams (BJU Board of Trustees) x Dr. Randolph Shaylor (BJU grad). x Dr. Mark Minnick (BJU grad. & BJU Bible Faculty) x Rev. John Hutcheson (BJU grad. & BJU Cooperating Board) • BJU Choices by Dr. Bob Jones III (BJU President) x Dr. J. Drew Conley (BJU grad.) x Dr. Mark R. Simmons (BJU grad.) • Choice by the Six BJU Loyalists x Dr. Paul W. Downey (PCC grad. & Bethany Seminary) 20 MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties? 10 BJU Influences on The Mind of Man (details) z 4. Six BJU Endorsers of the Book • Dr. Rod Bell (BJU grad. & BJU Executive Committee) • Dr. David C. Innes (BJU grad.) • Dr. Les Ollila (BJU grad.) • Dr. Ernest D. Pickering (BJU grad.) • Dr. Bob Taylor (BJU grad.) • Dr. John Vaughn. (BJU grad.) 21 MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties? 10 BJU Influences on The Mind of Man (details) z 5. 9 BJU Authors of The Mind of Man • Dr. James B. Williams (BJU Board of Trustees & General Editor) • Rev. John K. Hutcheson Sr., (BJU grad. & Cooperating Board) • Dr. Mark Minnick, (BJU grad. & BJU Bible faculty) • Dr. Randolph Shaylor, (BJU grad. & Managing Editor) • Dr. Ernest Pickering, (BJU grad.) • Dr. J. Drew Conley, (BJU grad.) • Dr. Mark E. Simmons, BJU graduate. • Dr. Keith E. Gephart, BJU graduate. • Dr. John C. Mincy, BJU graduate. 22 MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties? 10 BJU Influences on The Mind of Man (details) z 6. Three BJU Academicians • Dr. David Beale, (BJU grad. & on BJU faculty) • Dr. Sam Horn, (BJU grad.) • Dr. Ernest Pickering, (BJU grad.) z 7. BJU and the Publishers z 8. The BJU Release of the book z 9. BJU and the Sale of the Book 23 MIS-INFORMATION #2 No “Organization” Ties? 10 BJU Influences on The Mind of Man (details) z 10. Book’s Approval by BJU – President “Dr. Bob held up the book and called it ‘the most significant book for Fundamentalism in this decade, no, in this century.’. .” 24 MIS-INFORMATION #3 Northern Ireland Publisher? (source--July 4, 1999, tape) 25 MIS-INFORMATION #3 Northern Ireland Publisher? z Mind of Man states Ambassador- Emerald International (Greenville, South Carolina and Belfast, N. Ireland). z The Greenville, SC, address is too small to print anything. z The Belfast, Northern Ireland Publisher (Mr. Lowery) on 9/1/99 knew nothing about the book published before 7/1/99–They didn’t publish it! 26 MIS-INFORMATION #3 Northern Ireland Publisher? Some Pertinent Questions z On what press was The Mind of Man printed? z Was it the Bob Jones University Press? z In what city and state was The Mind of Man printed? z Was it in Greenville, South Carolina? or elsewhere? z What individual(s) funded this book? z Any connection with BJU? 27 MIS-INFORMATION #3 Northern Ireland Publisher? Some Pertinent Questions z What organization, if any, funded this book? z Did this organization, if any, have any BJU connection? z Why did Dr. Mark Minnick (7/4/99) talk so much about the Ambassador Publications in Belfast, Northern Ireland, implying that The Mind of Man was published by them? What motivated him on this? 28 MIS-INFORMATION #4 Dr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Solid Rock Greek New Testament : Theory and Practice
    The Solid Rock Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice Joey McCollum Abstract The Solid Rock Greek New Testament: Scholar’s Edition offers a recon- structed text of the New Testament based on Byzantine priority theory and expands upon the work of the SBL Greek New Testament by compar- ing the readings of over 10 major critical editions at nearly 8000 units of textual variation. In this survey, we will discuss the goals, principles, and processes underlying the development of this edition, focusing especially on the design and use of the apparatus. As we will show, the resources available in this work make it a valuable addition to the library of anyone involved in the teaching, translation, or study of the Greek New Testament. 1 Introduction 1.1 New Testament Textual Criticism For nearly as long as the Church has recognized the scriptures of the New Testament (ΝΤ) as authoritative, it has also understood that not all copies of these scriptures agree with one another.¹ If we assume that each book of the NT originated in a single inspired autograph, then any two manuscripts cannot both be right where they disagree.² More to the point, where any difference 1. The early church fathers occasionally took note of such differences in the manuscripts known to them. For this reason, their notes serve as crucial evidence for variant readings, sometimes in cases when the reading in the patristic citation has not survived in any NT manuscript. A comprehensive study can be found in Amy M. Donaldson, “Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings among Greek and Latin Church Fathers” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • 3 the Westcott-Hort Critical Theory
    3 THE WESTCOTT-HORT CRITICAL THEORY Although Brooke Foss Westcott identified himself fully with the project and the results, it is generally understood that it was mainly Fenton John Anthony Hort 1 who developed the theory and composed the Introduction in their two-volume work. 2 In the following discussion I consider the W-H theory to be Hort's creation. At the age of 23, in late 1851, Hort wrote to a friend: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus . Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones.” 3 Scarcely more than a year later, "the plan of a joint [with B.F. Westcott] revision of the text of the Greek Testament was first definitely agreed upon".4 And within that year (1853) Hort wrote to a friend that he hoped to have the new text out "in little more than a year".5 That it actually took twenty-eight years does not obscure the circumstance that though uninformed, by his own admission, Hort conceived a personal animosity for the Textus Receptus ,6 and only because it was based entirely, so he thought, on late manuscripts. It appears that Hort did not arrive at his theory through unprejudiced intercourse with the facts. Rather, he deliberately set out to construct a theory that would vindicate his preconceived animosity for the Received Text. Colwell has made the same observation: "Hort organized his entire argument to depose the Textus Receptus".7 And again, “Westcott and Hort wrote with two things constantly in mind; the Textus Receptus and the Codex Vaticanus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contributions of Textual Criticism to the Interpretation of the New Testament
    Restoration Quarterly Volume 5 | Number 4 Article 2 10-1-1961 The onC tributions of Textual Criticism to the Interpretation of the New Testament Frank Pack Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/restorationquarterly Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christian Denominations and Sects Commons, Christianity Commons, Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons, History of Christianity Commons, Liturgy and Worship Commons, Missions and World Christianity Commons, Practical Theology Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Pack, Frank (1961) "The onC tributions of Textual Criticism to the Interpretation of the New Testament," Restoration Quarterly: Vol. 5 : No. 4 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/restorationquarterly/vol5/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ ACU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Restoration Quarterly by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ ACU. RESTORATION QUARTERLY CONTENTS An Introduction : Th e Task and Method of Ex egesis -Abraham J . Malh erbe ...................................................... .......... 169 Th e Contributions of Textu al Criticism t o th e Inte rpret ation of th e New Testa ment-F ran k Pack ......................................... 179 Th e Lan guage Backgro und of the New Testam ent-J . W. Rober ts 193 Th e Psych ological App roac h to Int er pret ation-Paul Sou thern .... 205 Th e J ewish Background of the New Testament-J ack P. La wis .. 209 Th e Pagan Back gro und of th e New Testam ent - Roy Bowen Wa r d ........................................................................ 216 Patri stic Int er pretat ion of th e Bible-William M.
    [Show full text]
  • Westcott and Hort
    The Bible’s First Question “YEA, HATH GOD SAID?” (Satan’s question) Genesis 3:1 1 The Bible’s 2nd Question “WHERE ART THOU?” (God’s question) Genesis 3:9 2 Psalm 11:3—Key Verse “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3) The FOUNDATION of ALL DOCTRINE is the BIBLE. Having the RIGHT BIBLE is critically IMPORTANT!! 3 600 Years of English Bible Versions Years Bibles & N.T’s Years Between Undated 1+6 = 7 --------- 1300's 3+1 = 4 25 years 1400's 0+0 = 0 100 years 1500's 11+20 = 31 3.2 years 1600's 5+3 = 8 12.5 years 1700's 17+29 = 46 2.1 years 1800's 45+90 = 135 .74 years 1900's 53+144 = 197 .51 years __________________________________________________ 1300's--1900's 135+293 = 428 1.4 years 4 CHAPTER I God’s Words Kept Intact Is BIBLE PRESERVATION (The Bible’s Timelessness) 5 Verses on Bible Preservation 1. Psalm 12:6-7: “The WORDS of the LORD are pure WORDS: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt KEEP THEM, O LORD, Thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation FOR EVER.” 2. Psalm 105:8: “He hath remembered His covenant FOR EVER, the WORD which He commanded TO A THOUSAND GENERA- TIONS.” 6 Verses on Bible Preservation 3. Proverbs 22:20-21. “(20) Have not I WRITTEN to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, (21) That I might make thee know the CERTAINTY of the WORDS OF TRUTH; that thou mightest answer the WORDS OF TRUTH to them that send unto thee?” 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Is James White Right About Westcott and Hort and the Modern "Vatican Versions"?
    Is James White right about Westcott and Hort and the modern "Vatican Versions"? Are the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman Standard etc. still based on the Westcott and Hort Revised Greek critical Text? The short answer is an absolute and unequivocal Yes, they are. Some proponents of today’s new Vatican Versions like James White try to distance themselves from Westcott and Hort because so much information has come out documenting the beliefs and apostasy of these two men who are primarily responsible for the critical Greek text that underlies such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB. In his book, the King James Only Controversy, James White makes some interesting and contradictory statements regarding Westcott and Hort. On page 33 Mr. White writes: “Westcott and Hort used Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to produce their New Testament, a work that displaced the text used by the KJV, later known as the Textus Receptus, in scholarly studies.” Note: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” by those who promote the UBS, Nestle-Aland Critical Greek text that underlies the N.T. of such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 as well. Then on page 99 Mr. White writes: “KJV Only advocates love to hate B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Westcott and Hort’s work on the Greek New Testament is seen as a focal point of the attempt to “dethrone” the KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus.
    [Show full text]
  • 2Pe 1:20-21 Knowing This First, That No Prophecy of the Scripture Is of Any Private Interpretation
    KJV – KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE – STUDY: LESSON 2. WHY THE KING JAMES BIBLE : LESSON TWO. We continue in our study of why the KJV is the only accurate, reliable and true Word of God for English speaking people. Please understand this is a vast subject and this bible study will only cover the basic information to assist you to know the difference between the true Word of God and corrupt versions of the Bible. In the previous lesson we learnt that Satan attacks the Word of God by changing it and corrupting it, by adding words, subtracting words, questioning it, watering down, and outright denial of doctrines taught. Quote by Pastor Richard Jordan (MSS 103/Pg 2) “I’ve said to you over and over that God’s Word can’t be erased from the face of the earth so Satan’s intent is to try to corrupt it, to put things in it that cause you not to believe that the whole thing is inspired so that when you look at a verse you say, “Well, is it or isn’t it?” and there’s a question in your mind. You have to decide for yourself whether it is or it isn’t. When you give a subjective opinion, you set up a competing authority, and a third authority has to decide. So who’s going to be the third authority? Well, you’re going to be. It will be you or your school or Doctor So-and-so or some scholars or anybody but that Book.” God promised to PRESERVE His Word.
    [Show full text]
  • Which Greek Text 1
    Part 1 1.1 The scope of our brief study is? -The Scope of our teaching on 'Which Greek Text?' -Time will allow us to only focus on the Greek Text of the New Testament. -We will focus on the various English translations only to differentiate which of 2 Greek texts they are translated from -The Old Testament is based on the Masoretic text and is less controversial than the two main texts of the NT -By God’s grace and providence there are not as many variant readings among the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts as there are among the Greek New Testament manuscripts. -Most of the variants concern pronunciations which do not affect translation. -The Masoretes were rabbis who made it their special work to correct the faults that had crept into the text of the Old Testament during the Babylonian captivity, and to prevent, for the future, its being corrupted by any alteration. -Aligns very well with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek OT, the LXX -We will focus on the NT Greek Texts, we will lightly touch upon the English Translations only as they relate to the Greek text from which they were translated. 1.2 What would be your ideal language and your ideal New Testament? I would be fluent in speaking, writing, understanding Koine Greek, the language of the NT. My New Testament would be copied directly from the Original Autographs That would be ideal. Unfortunately we have to translate the Greek into English. And we do not have original autographs! -Koine is the Greek word for "common." Koine Greek (also called ‘New Testament Greek’) was the form of the Greek language used from around 300 BC to AD 300.
    [Show full text]
  • The Text·Tradition of Luke·Acts David E
    THE TEXT·TRADITION OF LUKE·ACTS DAVID E. AUNE, A.M. In the field of textual criticism, no text poses so great a problem for the cntlC as does that of the collection of documents making up the New Testament.l In con· trast to the paucity of extant classical manuscripts, there is a great abundance of manuscripts which witness to the text of the New Testament. There are, indeed, more than 4,000 extant Greek manuscripts of portions of the New Testament, 8,000 of the Latin Vulgate, and more than 1,000 of other versions.2 Add to this the vast number of biblical quotations found in the Fathers, and we find that the great mass of material, while it gives an unparalleled opportunity for the performance of the critical task, is also the source of enormous difficulties. The application of the classical method of textual criticism, recensio, exam­ inatio and emendatio, is impossible of rigid application to the text of the New Tes­ tament. The primary reason for this lies in the extensive process of corruption which has taken place between the various lines of manuscript descent. The presence of contamination makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the critic to decide whether the common errors of manuscripts are due to corruption between various lines of manuscripts or to common descent.3 Since all of the families of manuscripts con­ taining all or portions of Luke-Acts have been found to be variant carriers to a greater or lesser degree, the words of P. Maas find their application: However much the two variant-carriers vary in value, the selectio must be made independently in each case; no variant should be rejected without test­ ing.
    [Show full text]
  • Faithful Sayings William Pierpont Published the New Testament in the Original November 12, Greek: Byzantine Textform
    ISSUE BULLETIN OF THE OLSEN a new approach to textual criticism considering the weight of PARK CHURCH evidence for various readings. Their text, called “The Majority 19.46 OF CHRIST Text” is often abbreviated MT. In 2005 Maurice Robinson and Faithful Sayings William Pierpont published The New Testament in the Original November 12, Greek: Byzantine Textform. Their approach focuses on the Byz- 2017 antine text-type. Standard Version. Only the New King James Version (and Since Westcott and Hort, while no complete NT manuscripts a few other updates of the have been found many fragmentary papyri have been discovered Services KJV) continue to use the TR that predate Sinaiticus. These have been published in The Complete Sunday: 9:00 AM as their textual basis. Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Grand Rapids: Baker 10:00 AM Book House, 1999). Some include . 11:00 AM While the theory was 52 Wednesday: 7:00 PM quickly accepted that the The Rylands Papyrus (P ), a fragment acquired by B.P. Grenfell in Byzantine text-type was a Egypt in 1920 and published in 1934. It is in the Rylands Library and Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament corrupted text, some schol- was copied around AD 150. It is the oldest undisputed fragment of a Elders: ars continue to question its NT book with a portion of John 18:31-33. Pat Ledbetter How the Bible Came to Us (12) assumptions. Does the age The Chester Beatty Papyri (P46), discovered in Egypt and sold to Ches- Jeff Nunn By Kyle Pope of a manuscript guarantee its ter Beatty and the University of Michigan in the 1930s.
    [Show full text]
  • The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy Table Of
    1 THE WESTCOTT AND HORT ONLY CONTROVERSY Dr. Phil Stringer This message was given at the 33rd Annual Meeting and Conference of the GraceWay Bible Society meeting, Saturday, October 27th, 2001, held at Brampton Ontario, Canada TABLE OF CONTENTS I. The King James Only Controversy. II. The Primacy of the King James Bible. III. The Westcott and Hort Theory. IV. Westcott and Hort Only! V. What You Have to Believe to Accept the West- cott and Hort Theory. VI. Were Westcott and Hort Infallible? VII. Who Were Westcott and Hort? VIII. The Doctrine of Westcott and Hort. IX. Were Westcott and Hort Saved Men? X. The Work of the English Revision Committee. XI. Were Westcott and Hort Secret Practitioners of the Occult? XII. The Fundamentalist Defenders of Westcott and Hort! XIII. In Conclusion 2 I. The King James Only Controversy You don't have to read very much in contemporary, fundamentalist, Baptist literature to come across warnings about the "King James only controversy." Dr. Jerry Falwell announces that he is hiring Dr. Harold Rawlings to "refute the 'King James Only' cultic movement that is damaging so many good churches today." Dr. Robert Sumner warns about the "veritable fountain of misinformation and deceptive double talk on the subject of 'King James Onlyism'." Dr. J. B. Williams refers to those who advocate the King James Only as "misinformers" and as "a cancerous sore." Dr. Robert Joyner calls King James Bible loyalists, "heretics". Dr. James R. White warns about King James Bible proponents "undercutting the very foundations of the faith itself'. Such references to the King James Only Controversy are very common.
    [Show full text]
  • KJV NIV Debate.Pmd
    THE KJV-NIV DEBATE by Dr Jeffrey Khoo Lecture Notes FAR EASTERN BIBLE COLLEGE SINGAPORE No part of this syllabus may be reproduced in any manner for distribution without the written permission of Far Eastern Bible College, 9A Gilstead Road, Singapore 309063. The KJV-NIV Debate by Dr Jeffrey Khoo Academic Dean, Far Eastern Bible College www.febc.edu.sg Table of Contents INTRODUCTION A 21st Century Battle for the Bible KJV-Only or KJV-Superiority Ruckmanism Dean Burgon/Trinitarian Bible Society IMPORTANT DOCTRINES ON THE BIBLE The Inspiration of the Bible Three Views on Inspiration Natural Inspiration Partial Inspiration Total Inspiration Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration Biblical Meaning of Inspiration Verbal and Plenary Inspiration Dean Burgon on Inspiration Inspiration and Translation Are Translations Inspired? Accuracy in Translations The Canonicity of the Bible Meaning of Canon Identification of Canon Books of the Canon The Transmission of the Bible Transmission of the OT Method of OT Transmission Significance of OT Transmission Transmission of the NT Periods of NT Transmission Papyrus Period Uncial Period Minuscule Period The KJV-NIV Debate / Far Eastern Bible College / Dr Jeffrey Khoo 1 Types of Scribal Errors in NT Transmission Errors of the Eye Errors of the Ear Errors of the Mind Errors of Judgment The Preservation of the Bible Psalm 12:6-7 on Bible Preservation Westminster Confession on Bible Preservation Dean Burgon Society on Bible Preservation Significant Remarks on Bible Preservation by Scholars Dr Edward F Hills Dr William
    [Show full text]
  • Westcott and Hort: Translator’S Beliefs 1St Source
    Westcott and Hort: Translator’s Beliefs 1st Source: http://www.nivexposed.faithweb.com/custom3.html EARLY HERESIES STILL WITH US TODAY The Bible warns that there would be those who would corrupt the word of God (2nd Corinthians 2:17) and handle it deceitfully (2nd Corinthians 4:2). There would arise false gospels with false epistles (2nd Thessalonians 2:2), along with false prophets and teachers who would not only bring in damnable heresies but would seek to make merchandise of the true believer through their own feigned words (2nd Peter 2:1-3). It did not take long for this to occur. In the days of the Apostles, and shortly afterwards, several doctrinal heresies arose. Their early beginnings are referred to in the New Testament in such places as Galatians 1:6-8; 1st John 4:3; 2nd John 1:7; and Jude 1:3-4. They not only plagued the early Church, but are still with us today, in modern form, in many contemporary Christian cults. These false doctrines influenced the transmission of scripture and account for some of the differences in the line of manuscripts. WESTCOTT AND HORT Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. This Greek NT was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism which under- lay their Greek NT and several other Greek NT since (such as the Nestle’s text and the United Bible Society’s text).
    [Show full text]